Punjab and Haryana HC directs proclaimed offender in US to surrender, imposes $10,000 cost
The Amritsar resident had been arrested in 2004 and left the country after obtaining bail
2 min read
The case pertains to FIR No. 26, registered on 10 February 2004, under Sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967, at Rajasansi police station in Amritsar (Express Archives)The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Avtar Singh Pannu, a proclaimed offender in a 2004 fraud case, to surrender before the trial court within four weeks. Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while hearing Pannu’s plea seeking to quash orders related to his bail bond cancellation and his proclamation as an offender, imposed a cost of $10,000 on him for delaying trial proceedings.
Pannu had approached the court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, challenging the cancellation of his bail bond on 9 July 2004 and the proclamation order issued against him on 25 January 2006. The case pertains to FIR No. 26, registered on 10 February 2004, under Sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967, at Rajasansi police station in Amritsar.
His counsel argued that Pannu was in the US and was unaware of the case proceedings as no summons were ever issued or served to him. He assured the court that the petitioner was willing to surrender and join the trial.
However, the court noted that Pannu had been arrested in 2004 and was released on bail before leaving for the US. “This fact that the present case is pending against the petitioner was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner, and he intentionally and deliberately has tried to evade the process of law for the last almost 20 years, which is highly deprecated,” the ruling stated.
Granting him one opportunity to surrender, the court directed that his bail plea be decided on the same day, provided he deposits the cost of $10,000 with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Clerks Association. “Only in that eventuality, application of the petitioner for seeking bail be considered,” the order clarified.
You May Like
